[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Libguestfs] [PATCH libguestfs] guestfish: detect a few more failed syscalls



Matthew Booth wrote:

> On 19/08/09 09:34, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> There were a few unchecked syscalls in fish.c
>>
>>> From ba8b8b0684a03b6e6fbb939ed7e1cbf5e1000092 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Jim Meyering<meyering redhat com>
>> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:01:07 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH libguestfs] guestfish: detect a few more failed syscalls
>>
>> * fish/fish.c (issue_command): Detect/diagnose more failed syscalls.
>> ---
>>   fish/fish.c |   26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>   1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fish/fish.c b/fish/fish.c
>> index 830617b..e6cd270 100644
>> --- a/fish/fish.c
>> +++ b/fish/fish.c
>> @@ -750,8 +750,14 @@ issue_command (const char *cmd, char *argv[], const char *pipecmd)
>>     if (pipecmd) {
>>       int fd[2];
>>
>> -    fflush (stdout);
>> -    pipe (fd);
>> +    if (fflush (stdout)); {
>
> Looks like a stray semicolon in there. Also, wouldn't it be better
> form to test for test for a return value of EOF?

Argh.  Thanks.
And yes, testing for EOF does seem better.

I also noticed that there are other unchecked dup2 and fflush calls.
Another round coming right up.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]